Mixed Messages

[JohnW]

An FM station here in Western New York, WLKK, has been promoting their HD system with numerous spots 24/7 for quite some time now.  The gist of the message is how much of the music is missed by not hearing the CD quality of the station in HD.
To summarize, HD=good, analog=bad.

And yet, many times they follow that spot with one promoting a vinyl LP of local music that contains "close to 100% of uncompressed music information as originally recorded by the artist, while CD’s contain only about half that amount. And compressed music files, such as mp3’s are left with even a much smaller percentage than that.  Forget convenience: which would you rather listen to?"  http://1077thelake.com/pages/339595.php?
To summarize, analog=good, HD=bad.

I am very confused. 

[R.F. Burns]

Linear digital recording is much more revealing than analog. Digitsl audio, like the moving picture might not be a perfect image of what actually occured but as human beings we never notice that all that movies are, are a series of still pictures reproduced at the proper speed.  I have a MCI JH-110 2 track professional tape recorder and an Ampex 350 full Track machine. Both are excellent recorders but neither can compare with what can be done with a good Pro-Tools set up. My two Tascam Dat machines will outperform either analog machine. Analog can sound great but with digital there's no need for noise reduction and no tape hiss period. Analog radio can sound very good but there's always that background noise that like tape hiss or groove  noise is always there. The lack of analog hiss in the HD syatem is a major gain for people seeking a more realistic sounding transmission system. FM HD can sound excellent is properly employed.


http://www.mcirecording.com/JH-110/JH-110B-2-HP%20Photo.pdf

[Chuck]

<snip>Analog can sound great but with digital there's no need for noise reduction and no tape hiss period. Analog radio can sound very good but there's always that background noise that like tape hiss or groove  noise is always there. The lack of analog hiss in the HD syatem is a major gain for people seeking a more realistic sounding transmission system. FM HD can sound excellent is properly employed.

I'll agree that FM HD can, but it is fair to point out that a lot of "reference" recordings were originally made in analog.  And yes, there is hiss in them.  Making a digital copy of those also replicates the faults of the original recording.  HD can't improve on the quality of the original material.

The real advantage to digital is not in sound quality. It is in convenience and cost.  Anyone who has edited digitally will never go back to cutting tape with a razor blade and some splicing tape.  I still have my Edital, and at least at one time, I was pretty good with it, but there is no way I'd go back.  With the right software on a garden variety computer, anyone with some talent can do a lot more than you ever do in studios costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is faster, cheaper and easier.   I don't mean to infer that there is not a place for well equipped studios, but the real digital revolution has been all about putting very powerful audio and video production tools into the hands of the masses. 

[LinoNYC]

I'll agree that FM HD can, but it is fair to point out that a lot of "reference" recordings were originally made in analog.  And yes, there is hiss in them.  Making a digital copy of those also replicates the faults of the original recording.  HD can't improve on the quality of the original material.

That is not the job of hd radio, it is simply a better conduit than analog, no multipath, no need for h-f clipping.

The real advantage to digital is not in sound quality. It is in convenience and cost.  Anyone who has edited digitally will never go back to cutting tape with a razor blade and some splicing tape.  I still have my Edital, and at least at one time, I was pretty good with it, but there is no way I'd go back.  With the right software on a garden variety computer, anyone with some talent can do a lot more than you ever do in studios costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is faster, cheaper and easier.   I don't mean to infer that there is not a place for well equipped studios, but the real digital revolution has been all about putting very powerful audio and video production tools into the hands of the masses. 

The advantage is both sound quality and ease/economy.

I recently finished with my small role in a feature film shot in Bangkok, with the exception of the Arri 435 film camera, all recording and editing is done digitally (the film will be digitized for editing too).  At one point we had to do a VO so I got to see a typical Thai recording studio.  After sound goes through the board (in this case Yahmaha) it's sent to an AD converter feeding a PCI card in an Apple G5 and all further editing and enhancement is done digitally.  There are no racks of processing gear just two flat panel screens and alot of software.

This was a mainstream hit-producing studio and I'am told that the setup is typical of all such facilities in S.E Asia.

Aside from cassettes found in boomboxes analog recording has disappeared there.

For approx $12-14K/US the hardware requirements for a major sound studio are met. In many cases, one or two mics cost as much as all recording-editing-monitoring equipment.  Minimal maintenance required as well.

Lino

[KB1OKL]

An FM station here in Western New York, WLKK, has been promoting their HD system with numerous spots 24/7 for quite some time now.  The gist of the message is how much of the music is missed by not hearing the CD quality of the station in HD.
To summarize, HD=good, analog=bad.

And yet, many times they follow that spot with one promoting a vinyl LP of local music that contains "close to 100% of uncompressed music information as originally recorded by the artist, while CD’s contain only about half that amount. And compressed music files, such as mp3’s are left with even a much smaller percentage than that.  Forget convenience: which would you rather listen to?"  http://1077thelake.com/pages/339595.php?
To summarize, analog=good, HD=bad.

I am very confused. 

I collect LP's and have a very good analog system from the late 70's, good analog sound may be harder to work with but is much more realistic sounding than anything done in a digital studio. I have done a lot of recording in my life, as a pro when I was a kid and and part time now. Analog is the way to go in both recording and radio.
Chuck said the main advantage to digital recording is the ease of use, he is one hundred percent correct, with digital you sacrifice sound for ease of usage and delivery (except of course with the case of HD radio).
In other words the LP ad is correct. Besides the fact that you lose much of the information with digital what you are hearing is an approximation of the original performance, many ones and zeros make up the composite wave form if you follow me, which lends a harsh sound to digital music in addition to losing info, and the added compression lowers the loud passages in music and makes the soft passages louder which equals: lo fi. High Fidelity is actually as important if not more than stereo for realism and listenability and compressed music is not hi fi. Most records also have some compression in them but not apparently as much as CD's and especially MP3's have.
I have some records which sound like the artists are right in the living room with me, both jazz and rock. I also have these same artists on CD and the LP versions blow away the CD versions.
HD also adds artificial sounding highs to their signal, FM analog is processed a lot, but HD is even worse, it is like saccharine for the ears.
If you really want to hear the difference get a decent turntable and a good cartridge and buy some LP's, you'll hear the difference unless you have tin ears, which coincidentally a lot of HD executives obviously have.